IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana Roger Dewayne Redding, FILED Appellant-Defendant Oct 03 2024, 8:47 am
CLERK Indiana Supreme Court v. Court of Appeals and Tax Court
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
October 3, 2024 Court of Appeals Case No. 23A-CR-3068 Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court The Honorable David A. Happe, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 48C04-2201-MR-133
Opinion by Judge Brown Judges May and Pyle concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-3068 | October 3, 2024 Page 1 of 18 Brown, Judge.
[1] Roger Dewayne Redding appeals his conviction for murder. He claims the trial
court abused its discretion in restricting his right to cross-examine Deputy
Coroner John Smith (“Coroner Smith”). We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In 2020, Redding and Marina Redding (“Marina”) were married. They had a
tumultuous and volatile relationship depending on Redding’s level of
intoxication. At 9:08 p.m. on November 10, 2021, Marina called Patrice
Dixon, Redding’s cousin, and told her that Redding had accused her of sleeping
with Dixon’s son. Dixon did not believe there was any truth to the accusation.
Marina placed the call on speaker, and Dixon could hear Redding’s voice and
aggressive tone and “start[ed] going off on him.” Transcript Volume III at 94.
[3] At 9:30 p.m., Trevor Mullins, Redding’s upstairs neighbor, had a conversation
with Redding and believed Redding was “drunk as a skunk.” Id. at 42. Mullins
observed Redding and Marina arguing. At around 9:00 or 9:30 p.m., Dixon
arrived at Marina’s apartment and only Marina was present.
[4] During the evening of November 10 and the early hours of November 11,
Marina and Redding exchanged text messages. At 12:27 a.m. on November
11, Marina sent Redding a message that said: “But u got me f----- up if you
think your going to continue making me feel like a hoe!!! If you dont wanna be
married to me.. then go!!! I have done nothing to be treated like this.”
Exhibits Volume I at 32 (capitalization omitted). At 12:28 a.m., she sent a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-3068 | October 3, 2024 Page 2 of 18 message that stated: “I refuse to continue the verbal abuse that Im always f------
!!!” Id. (capitalization omitted). At 12:52 a.m., Marina sent a message saying
that Redding was heartless. A later examination of Marina’s cell phone
revealed that the last activity that required user input occurred at 1:50 a.m. on
November 11.
[5] After leaving the apartment, Redding drank alcohol, smoked cocaine, and
returned to the apartment at 7:35 a.m. for about four minutes and forty seconds.
At some point, Anna Mason, Marina’s neighbor, heard a scream. 1
[6] On November 11, 2021, two ATM withdrawals totaling approximately $300
occurred from Marina’s account with Madison County Federal Credit Union.
That same day, Marina’s daughter, Kira Smith (“Kira”) tried to reach Marina
but was unsuccessful.
[7] At 8:15 p.m. on November 11, Hamilton County Sheriff’s Deputy Skyler Moe
arrived at a scene involving a vehicle accident and observed a vehicle, later
identified as belonging to Marina, with “extreme damage to all sides of the
vehicle” in the middle of a cornfield. Transcript Volume II at 59.
Approximately 500 to 700 feet from the vehicle, other law enforcement officers
1 When asked how late she and her friends were partying that night, Mason answered: “Um, pretty late. Um, till early morning hours. Um, anywhere between midnight to seven (7), eight (8) in the morning. We might’ve stopped drinking before that but that’s when we were up and all hanging out.” Transcript Volume III at 63. Redding’s counsel asked: “Okay, and in relation when would’ve you heard the scream? Was it in the middle of that?” Id. Mason answered: “Um, yes. So somewhere in the middle of that. Probably like – I don’t know – late. Like, um, I can’t put an exact timeframe on them, but it could’ve been between – anywhere between midnight, maybe four (4), five (5) a.m.” Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-3068 | October 3, 2024 Page 3 of 18 found Redding hiding in bushes under a tree and suffering from a “large gash”
on his abdomen. Id. at 66. Redding was “very quiet,” “seemed kind of out of
it,” and had slurred speech. Id. at 72. Law enforcement later discovered
Marina’s wallet, driver’s license, and her ATM card for Madison County
Federal Credit Union in the vehicle.
[8] Deputy Moe called Kira and informed her that Marina’s vehicle had been
involved in a wreck and asked her if she knew Marina’s location. Kira went to
Marina’s apartment, observed through a window that Marina’s purse was in the
living room, and knew “right then and there something was majorly wrong.”
Id. at 91. Kira tried to open the door, but it was locked. She spoke to the
landlord, Darryl Rensel, who went to Marina’s apartment, unlocked the
exterior door to the building, unlocked the door to the apartment, returned from
Marina’s apartment, and said: “Don’t go over there. I need my phone to call
911.” Id. at 94. Kira ran to Marina’s apartment and found Marina in her
bedroom lying on the bed face down, there was blood, and Marina’s body was
cold.
[9] Law enforcement responded to the apartment at about 11:58 p.m., did not
notice any signs of forced entry into the apartment, and discovered a knife with
blood and a cell phone near Marina’s body. Coroner Smith placed paper bags
over Marina’s hands to prevent them from touching other items.
[10] At about 5:00 a.m. on November 12, 2021, Anderson Police Detective Scott
Sanderson spoke with Redding who was in the hospital. Redding said that he
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-3068 | October 3, 2024 Page 4 of 18 had an argument with Marina at the residence and he then left. Law
enforcement canvassed the area around the apartment, located a camera one
block east of the street on which the apartment was located, and obtained
surveillance video.
[11] Later that day, Norman Rayford, Jr., the Assistant Chief for Operations for the
Anderson Police Department, interviewed Redding. Redding stated that he
crashed into “[n]othing” and he was “[j]ust riding” before the crash in the
cornfield. Transcript Volume IV at 39. When asked where he had stayed all
night, he said he was at Oscar Malone’s residence. Rayford told Redding that
Marina had been stabbed to death, and Redding said, “B---sh--,” and did not
display any type of emotional reaction. Id. at 59.
[12] On November 15, 2021, the police interviewed Malone who indicated that he
had not seen Redding in “a long time.” 2 Transcript Volume III at 9. Dr.
Latanja Watkins, a forensic pathologist, conducted an autopsy on November 15
and determined that Marina died as a result of “[m]ultiple stabs and incised
wounds.” Id. at 78.
[13] On January 18, 2022, the State charged Redding with murder and alleged that
he was an habitual offender. On August 21, 2023, the court began a jury trial at
2 On redirect examination, Malone indicated that a long time “don’t mean a month, a year or nothing like that. I mean that just mean I hadn’t seen him [in] awhile. Pretty sure that’s what I meant by it.” Transcript Volume III at 12.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-3068 | October 3, 2024 Page 5 of 18 which Coroner Smith testified. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous
decision, and the court declared a mistrial. 3
[14] Prior to the commencement of a second jury trial, the State filed a motion in
limine on October 17, 2023, requesting that the court order the defense counsel
and defense witnesses not to mention “[t]estimony from [Coroner Smith]
regarding his opinion of Marina Redding’s time of death.” Appellant’s
Appendix Volume II at 146 (citing Ind. Evidence Rules 701 and 702).
[15] Redding’s counsel argued that Coroner Smith was not a lay witness and was
“able to form some sort of degree of opinion . . . based upon his training and
experiences as a deputy coroner.” Transcript Volume II at 28. He asserted that
limiting the ability to ask him questions restricted Redding’s ability to present a
defense and his constitutional rights. The prosecutor argued that Coroner
Smith had told him in a pretrial meeting that he was unqualified to testify about
time of death and had maintained that since the first trial. The court granted
the State’s motion in limine.
[16] During Coroner Smith’s testimony at trial, he indicated that he had been the
Madison County Deputy Coroner since January 2021 and he investigates
deaths, which required a forty-hour course. When asked about his experience
prior to becoming a deputy coroner, he stated that he was a paramedic and a
firefighter for about thirty years. He indicated that he responded to the death
3 The record does not contain a transcript of the first trial.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-3068 | October 3, 2024 Page 6 of 18 investigation in the early morning. 4 He described livor mortis as the pooling of
blood “in generally dependent areas . . . of the body after death.” Id. at 163.
He testified that livor mortis appears “[d]epending upon . . . the length of time, .
. . it goes from a purple pinkish reddish color to a dark red. The longer the time
the darker the color.” Id. at 163-164. He indicated that he observed livor
mortis in Marina’s body and that rigor mortis, the stiffening of joints in the
body, was also present in Marina’s body.
[17] After direct examination, Redding’s counsel requested a hearing outside the
presence of the jury for an offer of proof. Redding’s counsel argued that “the
State has brought rigor mortis and the training and everything so I think that’s
been open at this point . . . .” Id. at 168. During the offer of proof, Coroner
Smith stated that he indicated that the rigor mortis was a “plus two” in his
report which was “just a personal scale that [he] use[s] to help [him] remember .
. . how stiff the rigor mortis was.” Id. at 169. When asked if that scale could
give him an indication of how long someone had been deceased, he answered:
“No. No, that’s something I’m not qualified in.” Id. at 170. The following
exchange then occurred:
Q Do you recall your testimony from the last trial?
4 Coroner Smith testified that he responded to the death investigation in the early morning hours of November 11, 2021. The State notes that “[i]t can be assumed that he means the early morning hours of November 12, 2021, since he arrived after law enforcement, and two officers were the first ones at the scene on 11:58 p.m. on November 11, 2021.” Appellee’s Brief at 11 n.1 (citing Transcript Volume II 151, 154, 162- 163).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-3068 | October 3, 2024 Page 7 of 18 A Yes.
Q Did you say something different in the last trial?
A I did.
Q Okay. Pretty curious of why you would say something different in your last trial and now all of a sudden it’s a completely different story.
A I was under a lot of stress. I felt compelled to give an answer.
Q So when you said last time as [sic] trial the time of death based upon science it – in your experience the time of death was between eight (8) to twelve (12) hours prior to eleven-thirty (11:30) p.m. on 11/11 of 2021. That was flat out wrong?
A I don’t believe I used the word science.
Q Okay.
A I’m not qualified to give that opinion.
Q You were qualified at the last trial, right?
A No sir, I was not.
*****
Q [W]hat changed your mind in you decide [sic] now that you’re not qualified, but previously you were qualified enough that you were able to answer the question?
A Um, not sure I can answer that.
Q [W]as it some conversation with the State of Indiana in regards to that?
A No.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-3068 | October 3, 2024 Page 8 of 18 Q What changed your mind from the last trail [sic] whether – because you were willing to answer at the last trial, now your [sic] saying I can’t answer that question because I’m not qualified. What changed your mind?
A Just had time to think about it and, um, again I just felt pressured to give a respond [sic] to your question and I shouldn’t have.
Id. at 170-172.
[18] Redding’s counsel argued that he “should be able to ask him all that,” “[w]hy
he said that at the last trial,” and that “it’s open for impeachment and . . . it’s
open for factual information in front of the jury and I believe I should be able to
go beyond the scope of the Motion of [sic] Limine in regards to that.” Id. at
173. Upon questioning by the prosecutor, Coroner Smith indicated that he met
with prosecutors before the previous trial and told them that he was not
qualified to testify regarding the time of death and he reiterated that in a
meeting “within the last couple weeks.” Id. at 174. When asked if he ever
determines a time of death in the course of his employment, he answered: “No,
I do not.” Id. at 175. Defense counsel asked: “[B]ased upon science and
experience, can you give any range of time based upon rigor mortis? Can it tell
you how long somebody’s been deceased based upon that science, any range?”
Id. Coroner Smith answered: “I’m just not qualified. I don’t have enough
experience. I don’t have enough knowledge to make that determination.” Id.
The court concluded that the order in limine would remain in place.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-3068 | October 3, 2024 Page 9 of 18 [19] After the jury returned, Redding’s counsel asked Coroner Smith if he was able
to determine a time of death. Coroner Smith answered: “Beyond the official
time and, um, made by the first responders, no.” Id. at 177. When asked if he
had any training or experience that allowed him “to determine a death based
upon [his] observations of the individual . . . when” he arrives, he answered in
the negative. Id. During a bench conference, Redding’s counsel indicated that
he was going to ask Coroner Smith if he had previously testified to an
approximate time of death and argued that such a question did not violate the
order in limine. The prosecutor objected. When the prosecutor asked about the
relevance, Redding’s counsel asserted that “[i]t’s impeachment.” Id. at 178.
After some discussion, the court sustained the prosecutor’s objection, stated
that it would not allow defense counsel to ask that question, and stated that
defense counsel would be allowed an opportunity to make “an Offer to Prove as
to what your question would have been and his answer.” Id. at 182.
[20] Outside the presence of the jury, Redding’s counsel made the following offer of
proof:
Q [A]t the previous hearing you testified to an approximate time of death based upon what you observed, is that correct?
Q Today you’re saying that you’re not qualified to do that?
A That’s correct.
Q At the time of the previous hearing did you believe that you were qualified to do that?
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-3068 | October 3, 2024 Page 10 of 18 A I don’t know. Um, again, I felt pressured. I felt compelled to give a response.
Q So you just don’t know if you were qualified at the previous hearing? You don’t know what you – if you believed you were qualified?
Id. at 184-185.
[21] The prosecutor argued that “in the first trial [Coroner Smith] testified to an
approximate time of death” and “he never testified about his qualifications”
and “his testimony now that he’s not actually qualified to make that
determination is not inconsistent.” Id. at 185. The court stated:
The Court is going to find that it’s . . . debatable whether or not this is in fact an inconsistency that would demonstrate. But more over [sic] the Court is going to find under 403, that the relatively slight tendency that could exist to impeach the witness is very strongly outweigh[ed] by the risk of prejudice to the State or confusion among the jurors as what the purpose of the testimony would be. I think it’s very likely that they would interpret that as evidence of the time of death which it is not competent to, uh – uh, be considered by them for that purpose.
Id. at 186.
[22] The State presented the testimony of multiple witnesses including Deputy Moe,
Kira, Rensel, Detective Sanderson, Malone, Redding’s neighbors, Dixon, Dr.
Watkins, and Scott Grammer, an employee of the Indiana State Police
Laboratory. Dr. Watkins testified that she conducted an autopsy of Marina and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-3068 | October 3, 2024 Page 11 of 18 noticed visible lividity as well as rigor mortis. When asked if she determined
time of death as a forensic pathologist, she answered: “Um, usually I refer – it’s
not a specific science to determine a . . . time of death from an autopsy
examination. Um, usually the best measure to determine the last time
somebody, um, was alive was the last time they were seen alive or there was
contact or things of that nature.” Transcript Volume III at 71-72.
[23] When asked about the bag placed on the outside of Marina’s right hand,
Grammer testified that blood was indicated by presumptive testing and the
DNA profile obtained was interpreted as a mixture of two individuals with a
major and a minor contributor. He also stated:
The major profile was consistent with Marina Redding who is assumed as a contributor since it came directly off of her body. Roger Redding could not be excluded as a contributor to that minor contributor, and it was determined that the DNA profile is thirty-four (34) million times more likely that if it originated from Marina Redding and Roger Redding than if it originated from Marina Redding and an unknown, unrelated individual. This statistical analysis provides very strong support for the inclusion of Roger Redding.
Id. at 240-241.
[24] After the State rested, Redding testified that his arguments with Marina were
predominantly about his drinking and he accused Marina of sleeping with
Dixon’s son because he “was drunk” and “talking crazy.” Transcript Volume
IV at 99. He indicated that he “went all over town drinking” and smoked
cocaine after he left the apartment on the night of November 10, 2021. Id. at
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-3068 | October 3, 2024 Page 12 of 18 101. He indicated that he lost his cell phone “[r]ight after 1:08, apparently,”
and went to Malone’s residence “later on” and smoked cocaine until 6:30 or
7:00 a.m. Id. at 105, 107. He indicated that he returned to Marina’s apartment
at 7:35 a.m. to “get some money and the car” and unlocked the door. Id. at
109. He acknowledged that the neighbor’s surveillance video showed that he
was in the apartment for about four minutes and forty seconds. He indicated
that he took Marina’s keys and wallet from her purse, obtained marijuana from
his “weed drawer,” and left to purchase drugs. Id. at 136. On cross-
examination, the following exchange occurred:
Q And you’re saying that all you did in that four (4) and a half minutes, where we can tell that you’re in the house, is grab the weed and grab two (2) items from her purse that were in a single room. Is that what you’re saying?
A I got my marijuana. I mean what else can I tell you. I grabbed my marijuana, grabbed the keys, I grabbed the purse.
Id. at 137. The court later asked a juror’s question of: “What door had the
purse, bedroom or front door?” Id. at 143. Redding answered: “Front door.”
Id. The jury found Redding guilty of murder, and Redding admitted that he
was an habitual offender.
Discussion
[25] Redding argues that the trial court abused its discretion in restricting his right to
cross-examine Coroner Smith and asserts that he was entitled to impeach him
with his testimony from the first trial. Generally, we review the trial court’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-3068 | October 3, 2024 Page 13 of 18 ruling on the admission or exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion.
Roche v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1115, 1134 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied. We reverse only
where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances. Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 390 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied.
[26] Ind. Evidence Rule 613 is titled “Witness’s Prior Statement” and subsection (b)
provides: “Extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent statement is
admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the
statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness
about it, or if justice so requires.” Ind. Evidence Rule 401 provides that
“[e]vidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less
probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of
consequence in determining the action.” Ind. Evidence Rule 403 provides:
“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice,
confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting
cumulative evidence.” “All evidence that is relevant to a criminal prosecution
is inherently prejudicial, and thus the Evidence Rule 403 inquiry boils down to
a balance of the probative value of the proffered evidence against the likely
unfair prejudicial value of that evidence.” Hendricks v. State, 162 N.E.3d 1123,
1134 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), reh’g denied, trans. denied. The balancing of the
probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice must be determined with
reference to the issue to be proved by the evidence. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-3068 | October 3, 2024 Page 14 of 18 [27] The State acknowledges that Coroner Smith had testified at the first trial about
the relationship between Marina’s time of death and the onset of rigor mortis.
After the first trial ended in a mistrial, the State filed a motion in limine to
prevent any mention of Coroner Smith’s prior testimony regarding his opinion
of the time of Marina’s death. This is likely because Coroner Smith’s prior
testimony would be contradicted by the testimony of Dr. Watkins, the forensic
pathologist, who stated that determining a time of death is “not a specific
science” and “usually the best measure to determine the last time somebody,
um, was alive was the last time they were seen alive or there was contact or
things of that nature.” Transcript Volume III at 71-72. During the offer of
proof, Coroner Smith stated that he indicated that the rigor mortis was a “plus
two” in his report which was “just a personal scale that [he] use[s] to help [him]
remember . . . how stiff the rigor mortis was.” Transcript Volume II at 169.
Coroner Smith’s prior testimony bears on his credibility and competence.
Accordingly, we find Coroner Smith’s prior testimony to be relevant and that
the trial court abused its discretion in restricting the cross-examination of
Coroner Smith.
[28] A trial court’s error in excluding evidence does not require reversal if the error
was harmless. Hayko v. State, 211 N.E.3d 483, 491 (Ind. 2023), reh’g denied, cert.
denied, 144 S. Ct. 570 (2024). For non-constitutional errors, our harmless-error
analysis is found in Appellate Rule 66(A). Id. Ind. Appellate Rule 66(A)
provides:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-3068 | October 3, 2024 Page 15 of 18 No error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the trial court or by any of the parties is ground for granting relief or reversal on appeal where its probable impact, in light of all the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties.[ 5]
[29] The Indiana Supreme Court held:
When an appellate court must determine whether a non- constitutional error is harmless, Rule 66(A)’s “probable impact test” controls. Under this test, the party seeking relief bears the burden of demonstrating how, in light of all the evidence in the case, the error’s probable impact undermines confidence in the outcome of the proceeding below. See Mason v. State, 689 N.E.2d 1233, 1236-37 (Ind. 1997); [Edward W. Najam, Jr. & Jonathan B. Warner, Indiana’s Probable-Impact Test for Reversible Error, 55 IND. L. REV. 27, 50-51 (2022)]. Importantly, this is not a review for the sufficiency of the remaining evidence; it is a review of what was presented to the trier of fact compared to what should have been presented. And when conducting that review, we consider the likely impact of the improperly admitted or excluded evidence on a reasonable, average jury in light of all the evidence in the case. See Tunstall v. Manning, 124 N.E.3d 1193, 1200 (Ind. 2019). Ultimately, the error’s probable impact is sufficiently minor when—considering the entire record—our confidence in the outcome is not undermined.
Hayko, 211 N.E.3d at 492.
5 On appeal, Redding uses similar language to Ind. Appellate Rule 66 and asserts that “[e]rrors in the admission of evidence are considered harmless unless they affect the substantial rights of a party.” Appellant’s Brief at 10.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-3068 | October 3, 2024 Page 16 of 18 [30] The record reveals that Redding used an aggressive tone with Marina on
November 10, 2021. A neighbor observed Redding and Marina arguing.
Redding and Marina exchanged heated text messages during the evening of
November 10 and the early hours of November 11. After leaving the
apartment, Redding drank alcohol, smoked cocaine, and returned to the
apartment at 7:35 a.m. Redding acknowledged that a neighbor’s surveillance
video showed that he was in the apartment for about four minutes and forty
seconds. On November 11, 2021, two ATM withdrawals totaling
approximately $300 occurred from Marina’s account with Madison County
Federal Credit Union. That same day, Kira tried to reach Marina but was
unsuccessful. Law enforcement officers discovered Redding hiding in bushes
and Marina’s damaged vehicle in a cornfield. Law enforcement also discovered
Marina’s wallet, driver’s license, and her ATM card in the vehicle.
[31] Despite Redding’s statements that he was at Malone’s residence that night,
Malone indicated on November 15, 2021, that he had not seen Redding in “a
long time.” Transcript Volume III at 9. When asked about the bag placed on
the outside of Marina’s right hand, Grammer testified that blood was indicated
by presumptive testing and the DNA profile obtained was interpreted as a
mixture of two individuals with a major and a minor contributor and that “the
DNA profile is thirty-four (34) million times more likely that if it originated
from Marina Redding and Roger Redding than if it originated from Marina
Redding and an unknown, unrelated individual.” Id. at 240-241. Kira testified
that Marina’s back “was cold” and she “knew [Marina] had been gone for a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-3068 | October 3, 2024 Page 17 of 18 while.” Transcript Volume II at 95. Rensel, the landlord, testified that
Marina’s legs “had started turning black from the – I guess from the blood
pool” when he found her body. Id. at 129. He also stated: “When I’d seen her
legs I knew she’d been there for a – quite some time.” Id. at 132. In light of the
record, we conclude any error was at most harmless. See Hayko, 211 N.E.3d at
494 (“Hayko has not shown, considering all the evidence before the jury, that
the excluded opinion testimony would have impacted a reasonable, average
jury to such an extent that undermines our confidence in the verdict. The error
is therefore harmless.”).
[32] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Redding’s conviction.
[33] Affirmed.
May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Frederick Vaiana Voyles Vaiana Lukemeyer Baldwin & Webb Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Catherine Brizzi Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-3068 | October 3, 2024 Page 18 of 18